|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: verio arrogance
I couold be wrong, but I thought the 3640 had 256 mb of ram. On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Daniel Golding wrote: > > I think we are at the point where the vast majority of backbone routers can > handle 200K+ routes, at least in terms of memory. The interesting point we > are getting to, is that the most popular router in the world for multihoming > can't handle the routing table. I'm referring to the Cisco 3640, which has > largely supplanted the venerable 2501 as the low-end multihomer's edge > router of choice. > > With a reasonable number of features turned on (i.e. SSH, netflow, CEF), the > 3640 can't handle two full views anymore, due to it's limitation of 128MB. > While this may be a good thing for Cisco's sales numbers, in this winter of > financial discontent, I wonder how this is effecting the average customer, > and what is generally being installed to replace the 3640s. > > - Daniel Golding > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > > David Diaz > > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 11:55 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: verio arrogance > > > > > > > > Getting back to the more original thread. > > > > Is there any need to keep the routing table to a smaller size. Since > > in theory, it creates suboptimal routing. And considering the new > > routers out there today should be able to handle it. Considering > > verio is using junipers, and they pride themselves on handling a > > tremendously large table. Why should we shoot for a 100,000 route > > table instead of 500,000 if it does not impact performance? > > > > I do understand that the 100,000 might be that actual 'installed best > > routes' and that the routers might in fact be dealing with a much > > larger route table. That might be an issue. But certainly 100,000- > > 500,000 installed routes, is that a problem for large backbones with > > high end routers? > > > > My only consideration might be the small multihomed ISPs with 2-3 > > providers with full BGP feeds and cisco 4000s (256meg ram). I saw > > one last week. I might be concerned at that level. > > > > I'd love to hear feedback. It would then justify filtering...or not. > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > At 21:37 -0400 7/18/02, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > > >How is it arrogant? > > >I read that as: a customer set up an exploitable FormMail. Verio > > >received notice about it. Verio removed the FormMail in question. Verio > > >asked to be removed since they corrected the problem. Verio was ignored. > > > > > >Verio may have some problems with not terminating spammers, and I > > >believe this to be the truth -- I buy from verio, and Don't spam, and > > >whenever one of my clients spam, they get terminated for it. I receive > > >plenty of spam from verio ips, and no matter how much I complain, it > > >never gets terminated. This is probably a scenario of asking sales rep > > >"If I want to spam, but I pay more per meg -- Is this OK?" and getting > > >a positive answer. > > > > > >That is why the NANAE people don't like verio. But, nonetheless, I > > >don't think that putting verio's mailserver on a formmail list is > > >accomplishing anything good, since they fixed THAT problem... > > > > > >--Phil > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > >Kai Schlichting > > >Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:37 PM > > >To: [email protected] > > >Cc: Kai Schlichting > > >Subject: Re: verio arrogance > > > > > > > > > > > >How's THIS for Verio arrogance, going to a whole new level: > > > > > >http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/verio-demand.ps > > > > > >Details were on the SPAM-L list Wed, 17 Jul 2002 15:51:05 EDT: Verio > > >threatens to sue Ron Guilmette over the IP 208.55.91.59 appearing on his > > >FormMail.pl open-proxy/formmail server DNSBL. > > > > > >And given the ever-increasing number of spammers now hopping onto Verio > > >tells me that Verio must be well down the spiral of death (spammers seem > > >to be attracted by NSP's going chapter 7/11, or who are getting close), > > >or else the dozen-or-so automated messages going to [email protected] > > >every week complaining about connections (real or attempted) to hosts > > >under my control, and originating from their spamming customers would > > >have shown any results over time. > > > > > >I don't need connectivity to 208.55.0.0/16. I really don't, and I have > > >not the slightest tolerance for litigious, small-minded, > > >panic-lawyer-dialling scum like this. > > > > > >/etc/mail$ grep 208.55 access.local > > >208.55 550 Access for FormMail spam and litigious scum > > >denied - XXXX Verio in their XXXXXXXX XXX - we block more than just > > >208.55.91.59 - Spammers must die - see > > >http://www.monkeys.com/anti-spam/filtering/verio-demand.ps > > >/etc/mail$ > > > > > >PS: I also have zero tolerance for Nadine-type spam-generating, > > >"single-opt-in", > > > "87% permission-based" emailers nowadays: 2 bounces or a single mail > > >to a > > > never-existing account, and all your /24's are off into gated.conf as > > >a > > > next-hop route to 127.0.0.1. And no, they won't get around that by > > >advertising > > > /25's. > > > > > >Good-bye route-prefix-filtering wars, and welcome to the war on spam, > > >where Null0'd /28's for filtering 'undesirables' just doesn't cut it any > > >more. Casualties like 10-15 bystanding rackspace.com customers with a > > >"Nadine- type" mailer in neighboring IP space be damned: "move your > > >servers into a different slum, cause da landlord's running down 'da > > >neighborhood". > > > > > >-- > > >"Just say No" to Spam Kai > > >Schlichting > > >New York, Palo Alto, You name it Sophisticated Technical > > >Peon > > >Kai's SpamShield <tm> is FREE! > > >http://www.SpamShield.org > > >| > > >| | > > >LeasedLines-FrameRelay-IPLs-ISDN-PPP-Cisco-Consulting-VoiceFax-Data-Muxe > > >s > > >WorldWideWebAnything-Intranets-NetAdmin-UnixAdmin-Security-ReallyHardMat > > >h > > > > -- > > > > David Diaz > > [email protected] [Email] > > [email protected] [Pager] > > Smotons (Smart Photons) trump dumb photons > > > > >
|